Talk:List of undefeated NCAA Division I football teams

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

created article

Will be back to expand later. Feel free to add on to it if you can. I have included references if you want to help expand this. --Jayron 32 19:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List semi-complete, with records

completed tables from AP records. Still need to fill in pre-1934, 1936, and several years in the 1960's when the AP poll was only top 10. Also, there may be some stragglers that never made the poll, but still finished undefeated. Please update as needed, but also update the team records at the end. --Jayron 32 05:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Division 1-AA

I'm a big I-AA fan and I included the I-AA undefeateds at the bottom of the list. It's not very pretty but I think they deserve note, too. Going undefeated in I-AA is pretty ridiculous seeing as it's only happened 4 times in 27 years (14.8% chance) while I-A is pretty much every year ~90%. Excaliburhorn 22:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I was going to suggest that since the name of the article is "List of undefeated Division I-A football teams" then it might be best to create another "List of undefeated Division I-AA football teams" but seeing that there are very few of these, this may not be needed (is this because they have a playoff which means at most only one team a year can be undefeated?). Would it be best to rename the article "List of undefeated Division I football teams" so the inclusion of I-AA is apparent from the title?--NMajdan•talk 22:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Would it be best to rename the article List of undefeated Division I football teams" Do it. - Excaliburhorn

Refs needed for I-AA records

This is good stuff. I assume you were reading some document when you put this in. Please provide a reference so we can be complete. Thanks a bunch! --Jayron 32 19:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team with multiple...

Should that section be tabulated? Consistency, readability, etc... AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 01:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. I have no objection. Been busy updating the lists themselves. I may get to tabulating that section too, but if you have the time, feel free... --Jayron 32 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 04:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undefeated, or perfect?

This article is actually a list of perfect seasons, not undefeated seasons. Would anyone care for a name change on the article? Or is it still in the works to include teams with ties? – Latics (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article already includes teams with ties. see List of undefeated Division I football teams#Undefeated, but with ties CrazyPaco (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duh. Sorry, I can't read. Haha. – Latics (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria

I have a question/comment on the inclusion criteria. The list says it is limited to seasons in the top division of college football. For the period "Before 1972," this is defined as "University Division." But the "University Division" was only in existence 1956-1972. From 1906-1972, there were no subdivisions within NCAA athletics. Also, the NCAA did not even exist before 1906. These are complicating issues in many areas of college football history. If the list is to include pre-1956 (and even pre-NCAA) teams, then we need to refine the inclusion criteria. Perhaps something along these lines: "For the period before 1956, the list includes undefeated seasons by teams that either (i) continue to compete currently at the Division I level, or (ii) were widely acknowledged at the time as one of the elite football programs of its day (e.g., University of Chicago in the Stagg era, Carlisle Indian School in the Warner era)."Cbl62 (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology like "widely acknowledged" is too murky and will get you into trouble. You can't retroactively recategorize history which violates WP:OR anyway. All teams prior to 1956 can be thought of as having competed in one big (or top) division, and you have to be able to include all of them. Perhaps lack of divisions prior to '56 could be better explained in the article text. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good point paco, about "widely acknowledged" being murky. There's no easy solution. At a minimum, I think there needs to be a better explanation of the criteria are for the pre-1956 era. Since the article is titled "NCAA...", there probably also needs to be a note explaining that the list includes undefeated teams from the era before the formation of the NCAA in 1906. Cbl62 (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the only fair way to avoid retroactively re-categorizing is to include D-I programs from 1972 to present, University Division from 1956 to 1972, NCAA programs from 1906 to 1956, and any college or university programs (including the military academies, but omitting non-collegiate teams as discussed in the section below) prior to 1906. cmadler (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cmadler's proposal. That's probably as good as we can do. Cbl62 (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the NCAA (1869-1905), perhaps just "uncategorized", and then 1906-1955, "NCAA". I agree that the article may be served by dropping "NCAA" from the title, but I'm not sure what to rename it to. The same issue has come up with the national championship article. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how it could work, however, the history of what the NCAA meant in its early days needs to be checked. I have a suspicion that not all college teams played in the NCAA. In any case, I think the section better reflects the reality. References should be added. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~==Highest level of play==~~

This section covers teams that played in college football's highest division for any particular season. Prior to the formation of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), there was no differentiation between the level of play from one college to another, and thus all intercollegiate teams can be thought of to have played at the same level. Likewise, even after the formation of the NCAA in 1906, there was no differentiation in divisions until 1956.

uncategorized (pre-NCAA) 1869-1905

NCAA 1906-1955

NCAA University Division from 1956 until 1972

NCAA Division I from 1973 to 1977

NCAA Division I-A from 1978 to 2005

~~NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) from 2006-present~~

I went ahead and made an edit to the article to try to deal with the issue. Revert or edit as you see fit. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on that explanation. cmadler (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List should at least be limited to college football teams, right?

Another question/comment on inclusion criteria. Historically, college football teams occasionally played games against teams that were not affiliated with a college. They often played high school (USC played many games against LA High School in its early history) or club teams (Michigan played teams from the Detroit Athletic Club) or teams organized by a particular mining company (there were a number of famous teams in the early 20th Century organized by mines in the western states that played against major colleges) or military base. IMO opinion, the list should be limited to "college" football teams and should not include these other sorts of non-college teams that sometimes competed against them. Such teams have never been part of the NCAA and are not college football teams. Examples presently on the list include the 1943-1944 teams from the naval training station at Bainbridge, Maryland, the 1917 Marine Corps team from the Naval Shipyard in Vallejo, California, the 1944 team from Randolph Air Force Base, the 1944 team from Fort Pierce in Florida, and the 1944 Naval Air Station in Norman. These teams are very different from the teams affiliated with the military academies. The latter are college teams. The former are teams made up of active military and are not affiliated with a college. If we include active military teams who played against colleges, do we then include the undefeated LA High School team that beat USC? Do we include an undefeated team organized by a mine in Montana? I think the list should be strictly limited to college teams. Cbl62 (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the list should be limited to college and university teams (including those fielded by the military academies). cmadler (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

second that agreement. Club teams have never been considered to fit into the pantheon of college football history...even by college football historians going way back, like Parke Davis and Caspar Whitney. I don't believe there is any contradiction there to restrict it to college/university teams. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, military teams during the war years deserve special consideration because there were unusual circumstances, and some seem to be ranked among other traditional college teams (see College Football Data Warehouse). I'm not familiar with how they were contemporaneously considered in comparison with the college equivalents. It's worth further investigation before their removal. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a link to where you find the teams noted above being referenced in the College Football Data Warehouse. I couldn't find them there. Cbl62 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Lakes and Camp Hancock listed as being selected as national champions by Fleming and Sorensen, respectively, in 1918 here; Georgia Navy Pre-Flight selected by Massey/Sorensen/Fleming in 1942 here; Great Lakes selected by Kirlin in 1943 here; Norman and Randolph selected by Wilson/Nutshell Sports and Baker in 1944 here.Baker were contemporaneous I think, the rest I believe are retroactive awards. Kirlin is a serious historian of the game at least. It seems some people considered them college-equivalent. I don't know, it deserves some more research though I think. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to go even further, during WWII, these military training facility teams were ranked among the college teams by the Associated Press. see 1943 college football season and 1944 college football season. That pretty much decides it for me that they should stay. You have to think of these as the military academies that were set up during the special circumstances of WWII, when so man young men were diverted into the military and away from traditional college, and that their status on the field was similar to Army and Navy. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read about the war-time army base teams, they did include some college players. They also included many former college players who were serving in the military. I believe some also included pro players who were in the service. Some were effectively all-star teams. They were not true "college football" teams. The AP poll does give the inclusion some credibility thought. Time permitting, I'll see what else I can find. I suppose it makes sense to leave them for now. Cbl62 (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility rules may have been very different back then as well. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further Nit - Should this list really include 1 and 2-game seasons

Though this article has existed for years, I didn't stumble across it til today. My final (I think) comment may be viewed as a nit. The early part of the list is littered with a lot of undefeated "seasons" in which the teams played only one or two games. While technically undefeated, it doesn't seem right in my gut to count those as true undefeated "seasons." Is a single game or two really a "season"? No strong feeling on this, but a reasonable solution would be to limit the list to teams that have played at least four (maybe five) games. Cbl62 (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any number we chose would be inherently arbitrary, and therefore would be original research. So no, I don't think we can or should impose such a rule. The numbers are there for readers to evaluate for themselves; an undefeated 1-0 "season" is clearly indicated as 1-0. cmadler (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree here. You can't arbitrarily chose a cut off because of WP:OR. College football has evolved into longer seasons, but if someone went undefeated, so be it. They beat everyone on their schedule. Undefeated is undefeated. Give the reader credit for being able to determine for themselves what the significance is. Introducing our own commentary is unencyclopedic. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that the reader can't be trusted to understand. But the list will become extremely long if we include every pre-1906 team with 1-0 and 2-0 seasons. There are probably 100+ such teams. I've started adding them today. I don't think it's original research to estbalish reasonable inclusion criteria to keep a list manageable, but I'm OK either way on this point.

The table could be broken up into eras, i.e. pre-1900, and into columns to save space. The notes column could be thrown out, or linked into a foot Notes section, it is way too big anyway. I think I'd switch the notes into a footnote section, break it up into eras (by 50 or 100 years, or by division eras), and use multiple columns. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The table is already ordered by date. It could be made sortable though, but I think another field would need to be added to each entry that doesn't already have a field for "Notes" for it to sort correctly. Strikehold (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strikehold's suggestion would be ideal. Then it could be sorted by team name, number of wins, etc. That's a lot of work. If someone wanted to undertake that, it would be great. Cbl62 (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about it being sortable, but that doesn't solve the table length problem if that is a concern. Doesn't matter to me. I wish there was a way to sort a table that is split into multiple columns as I've run across this problem in other articles, but that is impossible I think. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sortability does help with the length. If a viewer wishes to eliminate the myriad 1, 2 and 3 win seasons, he/she can sort by number of wins. Cbl62 (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about a format along these lines:

Year	Team	Wins	Losses	Ties	Notes
2009	Boise State	14	0	0	Boise State becomes the second team in the BCS era with two perfect seasons. They also tie the FBS record 14–0 season of Ohio State in 2002
2009	Alabama	14	0	0	Alabama becomes the second team in the 2009 season, along with Boise State, to tie the FBS record 14–0 season of Ohio State in 2002

Or possibly get rid of the notes column and add some additional data such as "points for" and "points against." Cbl62 (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is significantly better than what exists. Points might be a good idea. The Notes column, as is, probably doesn't need to be sortable. CrazyPaco (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC):[reply]

All of the years (not just the first one) should link to the NCAA season, since the table is sortable. --GrapedApe (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on something in User:Cbl62/sandbox11. Cbl62 (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a searchable format for the years 1900 to the present. I got rid of the "notes" section, believing that the extra data on Points For, Points Against, Delta, and Coach were more valuable. Cbl62 (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bowl games?

Another thing to consider... that might open up a can of worms. Until relatively recently (1974?), bowl games were (literally) postseason exhibition games. The final rankings and champions were named before the bowls. Thus, a team like the 1920 Ohio State Buckeyes (undefeated until the Rose Bowl) would have been considered "undefeated", correct? Strikehold (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This raises an interesting point because bowl stats and records weren't counted in official statistics until 2002. The Official NCAA Records Book actually lists undefeated seasons without bowl results (see page 111 of the records book). However, popularly, you rarely see undefeated seasons listed as not including bowls. With the NCAA Records Book listing such seasons without bowls, perhaps it could be warranted to have an undefeated regular season table in this article as well. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global update of CFDW citation links

It appears many ("all") of the CFDW citations are out of date. For example, [1] -> [2] where the division structure (/div_ia/sec/alabama) has been replaced with an alphabetical grouping structure (active/a/alabama/), resulting in the legacy URL being 404. Assistance with fixes is appreciated, especially as the single CFDW citation may be reference multiple times in the article. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

undefeated/perfect seasons counts

Within List of undefeated NCAA Division I football teams#Teams with multiple undefeated seasons, it appears on first glance to be an incomplete list. Data appears to be ok, but omits many teams. See recent Washington State addition as an example. Assistance with fixes is appreciated. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Someone needs to add UC as of December 4 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danthefox12 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of undefeated NCAA Division I football teams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of undefeated NCAA Division I football teams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coaches with multiple undefeated seasons

ref: site - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_undefeated_NCAA_Division_I_football_teams

It appears Bud Wilkerson with 4 - 4 was left out. Years 1949, 54, 55, 56. Listed on same page.

I started to correct / edit it but not sure of info to add and didn't want to mess it up. Thank You 70.191.104.58 (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Gary Rice[reply]

Done diff Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]